Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Ref ID 936
First Author M. L. Rethlefsen
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435623003190?via%3Dihub
Keywords Open data
General medical
Searching
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Methods not described to enable replication
Insufficient literature searches
Number of systematic reviews included 100
Summary of Findings From a random sample of 100 biomedical systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021, the reproducibility of search strategies (PRISMA-S). The included 100 systematic reviews contained 453 database searches. Of those, complete database information, including naming the database and platform (PRISMA-S item 1), was available for 47.2% (214/453) (Table 1). Only 4.9% (22/453) database searches clearly reported all six PRISMA-S items. Least commonly reported were item 9, limits and restrictions, and item 13, dates of searches. Limits and restrictions were fully reported for 22.1% (100/453) of database searches, and the exact date of the search was provided for 22.7% (103/453) database searches.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes